D.Kan.: § 1983 complaint questions state conviction and is barred by Heck

Plaintiff’s 242 paragraph § 1983 complaint calls into question his criminal conviction, so it’s barred by Heck. Turner v. Kansas Court of Appeals, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55052 (D. Kan. Mar. 25, 2025).*

“Here, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unlawful imprisonment and ‘failure to investigate’ § 1983 claims are rooted in the alleged impropriety of his probation violation proceedings. Heck prevents these claims from passing go.” Williams v. Macomb Cty., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55241 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2025).*

“This is, in other words, a context-dependent excessive force case in which the unconstitutionality of Hines’s conduct must be established, not through highlevel legal principles, but through specific facts from analogous case law. … Yet Thomas—on whom lies the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply—has failed to identify a single factually analogous case that could have given Hines ‘fair warning’ that his conduct in arresting Thomas was unconstitutional. … And the factually analogous case law that the Court has found—for example, Buckley, Charles, and Woodruff—indicates the opposite, that Hines’s use of force was objectively reasonable. Thomas has therefore failed to show that Hines is not entitled to qualified immunity, and Hines is accordingly entitled to judgment on Thomas’s Fourth Amendment claim as a matter of law.” Thomas v. Hines, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53369 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2025).*

Plaintiff’s alleged false arrest by CBP near the border was a new Bivens claim and rejected. Romero v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54301 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025).*

Summary judgment for the officer was properly denied because of questions of material fact. Savage v. Segura, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6883 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2025).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.